M. P. Moller, Inc. v. Farley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

M. P. Moller, Inc. v. Farley

219 A.D. 750

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 A.D. 750 (M. P. Moller, Inc. v. Farley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

M. P. Moller, Inc. v. Farley, 219 A.D. 750 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment modified by inserting a provision granting permission nunc pro tunc to bring the action against the receiver, and by providing that the recovery of either damages and costs, or damages, interest and costs, shall run against only the defendants Parley, as receiver, and The Parash Theatre Co., Inc., and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Cochrane, P. J., Van Kirk, Hinman, McCann and Davis, JJ.; Davis, J., concurs for modification and affirmance but does not regard it necessary to enter a nunc pro tunc order granting leave to sue the receiver, he having appeared, answered and gone to trial without raising the question. (Hubbell & Curran v. Dana, 9 How. Pr. 424; Hackley v. Draper, 4 T. & C. 614; affd., 60 N. Y. 88; Pruyn v. McCreary, 105 App. Div. 302; affd., 182 N. Y. 568; Matter of Young, 7 Fed. 855; Naumburg v. Hyatt, 24 id. 898, 901.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment modified by inserting a provision granting permission nunc pro tunc to bring the action against the receiver, and by providing that the recovery of either damages and costs, or damages, interest and costs, shall run against only the defendants Parley, as receiver, and The Parash Theatre Co., Inc., and as so modified unanimously affirmed, without costs. Present — Cochrane, P. J., Van Kirk, Hinman, McCann and Davis, JJ.; Davis, J., concurs for modification and affirmance but does not regard it necessary to enter a nunc pro tunc order granting leave to sue the receiver, he having appeared, answered and gone to trial without raising the question. (Hubbell & Curran v. Dana, 9 How. Pr. 424; Hackley v. Draper, 4 T. & C. 614; affd., 60 N. Y. 88; Pruyn v. McCreary, 105 App. Div. 302; affd., 182 N. Y. 568; Matter of Young, 7 Fed. 855; Naumburg v. Hyatt, 24 id. 898, 901.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D. 750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-p-moller-inc-v-farley-nyappdiv-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack